When do you see Linux using more resources?

Just watched a rescent video comparing Mint and Windows loading some games and it looked like Linux was always lower as Windows starts the race allocating more.

The topic of mantaining code around AI PRs has it’s place but I ain’t feeling it after that declaration to disregard far more significant problems around AI (““it’s a tool””). I ain’t in the mood for silly word games about compilers.

Work for free before getting paid! There will still be ads on your videos, but they ain’t sharing the attention money.

If you know where I could read about the monetary issues of xz and heartbeat I would appreciate such links.

You could be right about their ill motives for what they said but we do not know if they can even afford to pay or know enough to contribute. You could say my motives for software freedom are selfishly motivated, and I’ve only donated an OS. Given the numerous libre projects in our OS it’s difficult for anyone to do them all?

It makes sense that it’s more difficult to earn money from software when you attach a software freedom license - you’re actively choosing to not take advantage of your users. Like choosing not to just dump mercury in the river when it’s legal.

I enjoy writing code so not having the bad incentives from trying to monetize it seems a blessing - I don’t feel compelled to deny user software freedom for profit. I think focus may be better placed on promoting a univeral basic income - where everyone’s income doesn’t start at 0. That would help devs choose to keep their projects open.

You say most, so some have figured it out then?

I think a universal basic income would make it a lot easier for devs to choose to continue/start making free (libre) software. Depending on the country, a UBI funded by tech companies - including those corpos using it without giving back.

If so then I reject the implication that you cannot get meaningfully paid without making an open source project closed source.

Without looking at the history all I can say your interpratation is possible. However, I reject the idea it’s ““professional”” to close source a once open source project. I can certainly understand a simple project becoming untenable due to popularity and sympathize the need to make money but failing to respect user’s software freedom points closer to their suggested motives.

Moving away from a proprietary OS to a (mostly) software freedom respecting OS is good. A shame that video games are proprietary.

Getting the same price in the end is great and all but I can’t say being tested on without my prior knowledge or consent seems ethical.

Why is “randomized” what makes it ethical?

Not found

A party of one?

Screw AI RAMpocalypse, I’m buying an open source firmware motherboard.

If you could have nothing but pure intentions… that’s still a bad way to go about getting users to update. Users choose to not update to avoid getting fucked by Microslop.

Looks like an EvE profile image.

I heard it runs on UWU/Linux

Real money?

“Think of the game-devs needing to make money” says a fat cat talking about a tool forged from game-dev’s labour without compensation and disregarding any social contracts (i.e. copyleft software licenses).

“We must do X at any cost to the user because others will do it and get the money”

This mentality has driven the games industry to become psychologically manipulative, subscription battleass and absolutely proprietary.

Maybe the irresponsibility is in ourselves for giving those game companies money.

I’d like to think that is so but some here will argue non-copyleft licenses are “more free”. Ime they don’t reply after I point out that’s the freedom to deny others freedom.